ArticleBrain sciences2025
Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Classification of Visual Stimulation-Induced EEG Signals in 2D and 3D VR Videos.
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of MRI-Navigated Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation on Task Performance, Subjective Workload, and EEG Responses During Prolonged Simulated Flight: A Randomized Crossover Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimization of attention mechanisms in choral conducting education using EEG and eye movement tracking with transfer learning algorithms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Cognitive Function Assessment Using a Virtual Reality Serious Game System in Patients With Stable Schizophrenia: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Machine Learning in Sensory Analysis of Mead-A Case Study: Ensembles of Classifiers.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsVirtual reality (VR) has become a transformative technology with applications in gaming, education, healthcare, and psychotherapy. The subjective experiences in VR vary based on the virtual environment's characteristics, and electroencephalography (EEG) is instrumental in assessing these differences. By analyzing EEG signals, researchers can explore the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive and emotional responses to VR stimuli. However, distinguishing EEG signals recorded by two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) VR environments remains underexplored. Current research primarily utilizes power spectral density (PSD) features to differentiate between 2D and 3D VR conditions, but the potential of other feature parameters for enhanced discrimination is unclear. Additionally, the use of machine learning techniques to classify EEG signals from 2D and 3D VR using alternative features has not been thoroughly investigated, highlighting the need for further research to identify robust EEG features and effective classification methods.
methodsThis study recorded EEG signals from participants exposed to 2D and 3D VR video stimuli to investigate the neural differences between these conditions. Key features extracted from the EEG data included PSD and common spatial patterns (CSPs), which capture frequency-domain and spatial-domain information, respectively. To evaluate classification performance, several classical machine learning algorithms were employed: ssupport vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), random forest (RF), naive Bayes, decision Tree, AdaBoost, and a voting classifier. The study systematically compared the classification performance of PSD and CSP features across these algorithms, providing a comprehensive analysis of their effectiveness in distinguishing EEG signals in response to 2D and 3D VR stimuli.
resultsThe study demonstrated that machine learning algorithms can effectively classify EEG signals recorded during watching 2D and 3D VR videos. CSP features outperformed PSD in classification accuracy, indicating their superior ability to capture EEG signals differences between the VR conditions. Among the machine learning algorithms, the Random Forest classifier achieved the highest accuracy at 95.02%, followed by KNN with 93.16% and SVM with 91.39%. The combination of CSP features with RF, KNN, and SVM consistently showed superior performance compared to other feature-algorithm combinations, underscoring the effectiveness of CSP and these algorithms in distinguishing EEG responses to different VR experiences.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that EEG signals recorded during watching 2D and 3D VR videos can be effectively classified using machine learning algorithms with extracted feature parameters. The findings highlight the superiority of CSP features over PSD in distinguishing EEG signals under different VR conditions, emphasizing CSP's value in VR-induced EEG analysis. These results expand the application of feature-based machine learning methods in EEG studies and provide a foundation for future research into the brain cortical activity of VR experiences, supporting the broader use of machine learning in EEG-based analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.